Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Gruden vs King


Mr. Scot

Recommended Posts

Shaun King, that is. Not Peter.

Shaun King says Gruden failed to develop him

Speaking as co-host of The King David Show on WQYK-AM 1010 today, King said Chucky is excellent at breaking down film and has been a successful head coach but the entire premise of the ESPN QB special is garbage.

“I won’t watch it. I disagree with the premise of the show. The premise is that Gruden is some kind of quarterbacks guru and that having him as a destination for a rookie QB is the ideal situation for a rookie and that just hasn’t proven to the case,” said King, who played two seasons under the Chucky regime in Tampa.

King’s point can’t be argued. Chucky has no success record with young quarterbacks, though that surely doesn’t take away from the entertaininment value of the special. Great Xs and Os and squirming draft hopefuls is a stellar mix.

Jon Gruden says "he's right"

We had the final question of the hour. With our Cam Newton and Jake Locker questions already taken, we lived up to Gruden’s negative blogger stereotype and asked about Shaun King’s recent criticism of Gruden.

“I did fail miserably in developing Shaun King and I’m sorry he’ll miss our show,” Gruden said.

We give Gruden credit for the funny response. He didn’t point out that he’s never coached a first-round pick at the position, saying he misses working with quarterbacks and that he could have done a better job developing them.

ESPN’s senior director of communications Bill Hofheimer seemed a little less amused than Gruden as the call wrapped.

“I wish we had a better question to end on,” Hofheimer said.

So does this hurt the credibility of Gruden's "QB Camp" program?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The article is about Gruden's QB Camp and his credibility at critiquing QBs since he never really developed one. Every thread needs a Newton reference, so there has to be one here.

Apparently :frown2:

I wasn't aware Newton had a part in the development of Shaun King :sosp:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't. You already played it :nonod:

GOOD ONE!!

But come on man, you know my original comment is true. This thread was started literally hours after a separate thread which had a report of Gruden suggesting that we take Cam.

Why did I have to mention Cam? Why not? He is the player who appears to be on the top of our board. He was featured on Gruden's Camp. As said above, there was a thread early today regarding Gruden's opinion on Cam.

The people who are against drafting Cam will run with this as proof that Gruden isn't credible and there is still no good reason to pick Cam.

The people for drafting Cam will say this article is dumb and we should listen to Gruden

anyways.

Just don't act like you didn't know what you were doing when you started this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Congratulations do they know who the father is?
    • In my opinion Fitterer was probably right about not paying McCaffrey. Now not wanting to "pay RBs" in my opinion isn't something you want to set in stone, to me it all comes down to the individual.
    • Maybe I'm just not understanding, but everywhere that I have read says that signing bonuses go against the cap prorated by as much as five years. The following example uses Andrew Luck's rookie contract as an example. "Take Andrew Luck, the first overall pick in the 2012 NFL draft. Luck signed a four-year contract with the Colts worth $22.1 million and included a $14.5 million signing bonus. Rather than a $14.5 million cap hit in 2012, the Colts spread out his signing bonus over the life of his contract. The hit against the cap would be $3.625 million per year over four years instead of a direct cap hit of $14.5 million directly in 2012. This gave the Colts more leverage and cap flexibility in signing other players." https://www.the33rdteam.com/nfl-signing-bonuses-explained/ I don't know why some of you think that signing bonuses aren't counted against the cap over the length of the contract, but whatever.   "The bonus with a signing is usually the most garish aspect of a rookie contract. Bonus is the immediate cash players receive when they ink a deal. It factors into the cap, but only for the whole contract duration, in terms of salary cap calculations. In the case of Bryce Young’s $24.6 million signing bonus, that’s prorated to approximately $6.15 million per season over a four-year deal. This format allows teams to handle the cap and provides rookies with some short-term fiscal stability, which is important given the high injury risk in this league." https://collegefootballnetwork.com/how-rookie-contracts-work-in-the-nfl/ I understand how signing bonuses can be a useful tool in order to manage the cap, and as one of the article suggests, signing bonuses may become important if you have a tight cap, but the bill is always going to come due. I'm not necessarily referring to you Tuka, but it seems to me that others simply don't want to understand that fact which is why they're reacting to what I'm saying negatively. How odd. In any event, I have a better general understanding of why signing bonuses are used now, and it's generally to fit salaries under the cap. Surely players, whether they be rookies or not, love a signing bonus because they get a good portion of their money up front. This in turn gives them more security and probably amounts to tax benefits as well. I also understand why teams would not want to use signing bonuses, particularly for players or draftees who have a higher probability of being gone before a contract even ends.
×
×
  • Create New...